Manoj Balkrushna Shelar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) And Ors

TRUSHATUSHARMOHITEDigitally signed byTRUSHA TUSHARMOHITEDate: 2023.08.0514:30:05 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9281 OF 2023 Manoj Balkrushna Shelar ….. Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) and Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Shrivallabh Panchpor i/b Ms.Pratibha Gavhane for petitioner Mr.Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms.Samiksha Kanani for respondents CORAM:K.R. SHRIRAM, J &FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.DATED :31[st] JULY 2023 P.C. 1.Petitioner is impugning order dated 13[th] May 2023 passed underSection 147 read with Sections 144A(d) and 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the said Act”) on various grounds. 2.Mr.Panchpor submitted that though in the impugned order there is a reference to the reply filed by petitioner to the notice issued, theAssessment Officer (AO) has not considered the reply or dealt with thesubmissions of petitioner. 3.Mr.Panchpor submitted that the notice issued was alleging thatpetitioner has purchased two immovable properties of Rs.42,56,640/- and Rs.2,41,91,136/- in Financial Year 2014-15 but not considered in the I.T.returns for Financial Year 2014-15 and therefore, there has been anescapement of income. Petitioner has replied to the notice stating thatboth the properties mentioned in the notice were not purchased byPetitioner and therefore, those properties could not have been tagged topetitioner’s PAN. Petitioner also added that Petitioner had purchasedanother property of about Rs.35 lakhs by taking a home loan havingregistration date 21[st] January 2015 and the home loan was granted by DNSBank which is also reflected in petitioner’s CIBIL record. Petitioner alsooffered to provide Index 2 of the said property. Petitioner had categoricallydenied having purchased any property worth Rs.42,56,640/- andRs.2,41,91,136/-. Petitioner requested AO to investigate if somebody hasmisused petitioner’s PAN Number. Having considered the impugned orderwith the assistance of Mr.Panchpor and Mr.Manwani, we find that the AOhas not dealt with any of the submissions of petitioner. 4.Another point raised by Mr.Panchpor is in the reply dated 14[th]August 2022, petitioner had also requested for a personal hearing to justifyalong with documentary evidence. No personal hearing was also granted. 5.In our view, therefore, we need not grant the request of Mr.Manwanito file affidavit in reply. 6.The impugned order dated 13[th] May 2023 is quashed and set aside.Matter is remanded to respondents for denovo consideration. 7Before Respondents proceed further in the matter, respondent no.1shall provide details and documentary evidence as per the informationaccording to respondents that were available with the I.T.Departmentreferred to in paragraph 5 of the Annexure to Notice dated 5[th] April 2022issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. If and only when these details areprovided, petitioner shall respond within two weeks of receiving the same.Thereafter, further proceedings can be taken but before any order ispassed, petitioner shall be given a personal hearing notice whereof shall becommunicated atleast 5 working days in advance. 8.Order to be passed shall be a reasoned order dealing with allsubmissions of petitioner. 9.Petition disposed. (FIRDOSH P.POONIWALLA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)